Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. on 2 July, 1975

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. (And Vice ... on 27 April, 1994

It was submitted that the facts in the two decisions cited above and the present case before us turn on their own facts and the peculiar position emerging from the right of occupancy arising from ownership of shares in a company and the principles to be applied in such a case were wholly different from the principles to be applied in the case of agreement to sell classical immovable property in the form of land and structure which was considered by our court in CIT v. Union Land and Building Society Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 794 and CIT v. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 499. Shri Dastur strenuously pointed out that in these two earlier decisions the agreement for sale was entered into but conveyance which was necessary to be executed for vesting title in the transferee had not been executed.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Ansal Properties And Industries (P.) ... on 31 August, 1984

The case relied upon by the learned IAC in his instructions to the ITO in this case, namely, CIT v. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 499 (Bom.) is not material in this connection as it was common ground in that case that the assessee had owned the house property and had right to receive income from that house property in the first instance.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 58 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Sultn Brothers Pvt. Ltd. on 11 February, 1982

It was submitted by Mrs. Jagtiani that in view of these decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we should take a different view on this question from the view which was taken by the Division Bench of this court in Zorostrian Building Society's case [1976] 102 ITR 499, althought she fairly stated that it was not disputed by her that the provisions of s. 9 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, were in pari materia with the provisions of s. 22 of the said Act as far as the question before us is concerned.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sahay Properties And Investment Co. (P) ... on 2 December, 1982

Secondly the distinction in principle, which these cases have tried to draw between the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and the other general principle adopted by the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts in the cases of Ganga Properties Ltd, (supra) Union Land and Building Society Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. (supra) is not a valid distinction. In very sweeping terms these cases have said that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be caged and cabined to the facts of its own case as there was a statutory provision under which the right of ownership could not be exercised by the legal owner so long as the evacuee property was in the hands and within the control of the Custodian Evacuee Properties. although ultimately the residuary or the husk of the title might revert after the proceedings had terminated. That we are afraid, is not the ratio of the Supreme Court decision. It is true that the case arose on the facts wherein the Pakistan (Ad ministration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 had interposed to over shadow the legal title or ownership of the person to whom the property ultimately belonged. But it must not be forgotten that in priority of history and of logic the facts always come before the law. Whatever be the facts we have to look to the ratio decident namely, the law as laid down on principle, and for that purpose we have to detain ourselves at some length by taking ex tracts from the Supreme Court decision itself.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next